Why is a space homeomorphic to the orbit space of its universal cover by its deck transformations?












2














Below is an excerpt from Hatcher's Algebraic Topology, page 72:



enter image description here



I don't understand why the part above highlighted in red is generally true. I can relate it to an example where it is true though: We can consider $S^1$ covered by $mathbb{R}$. Then the deck transformations of $mathbb{R}$ correspond to the action of $mathbb{Z}$ on $mathbb{R}$ via translation by an integer. Hence, indeed we have $mathbb{R} / mathbb{Z} cong S^1$. But I don't know why the statement $tilde{X} / G(tilde{X}) cong X$ is true in general.










share|cite|improve this question





























    2














    Below is an excerpt from Hatcher's Algebraic Topology, page 72:



    enter image description here



    I don't understand why the part above highlighted in red is generally true. I can relate it to an example where it is true though: We can consider $S^1$ covered by $mathbb{R}$. Then the deck transformations of $mathbb{R}$ correspond to the action of $mathbb{Z}$ on $mathbb{R}$ via translation by an integer. Hence, indeed we have $mathbb{R} / mathbb{Z} cong S^1$. But I don't know why the statement $tilde{X} / G(tilde{X}) cong X$ is true in general.










    share|cite|improve this question



























      2












      2








      2







      Below is an excerpt from Hatcher's Algebraic Topology, page 72:



      enter image description here



      I don't understand why the part above highlighted in red is generally true. I can relate it to an example where it is true though: We can consider $S^1$ covered by $mathbb{R}$. Then the deck transformations of $mathbb{R}$ correspond to the action of $mathbb{Z}$ on $mathbb{R}$ via translation by an integer. Hence, indeed we have $mathbb{R} / mathbb{Z} cong S^1$. But I don't know why the statement $tilde{X} / G(tilde{X}) cong X$ is true in general.










      share|cite|improve this question















      Below is an excerpt from Hatcher's Algebraic Topology, page 72:



      enter image description here



      I don't understand why the part above highlighted in red is generally true. I can relate it to an example where it is true though: We can consider $S^1$ covered by $mathbb{R}$. Then the deck transformations of $mathbb{R}$ correspond to the action of $mathbb{Z}$ on $mathbb{R}$ via translation by an integer. Hence, indeed we have $mathbb{R} / mathbb{Z} cong S^1$. But I don't know why the statement $tilde{X} / G(tilde{X}) cong X$ is true in general.







      general-topology algebraic-topology






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Nov 27 at 3:27

























      asked Nov 27 at 3:11









      Frederic Chopin

      321111




      321111






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2














          Here's the idea: given a "normal" covering space $widetilde{X}xrightarrow{p} X$, a deck transformation is an automorphism $phiin operatorname{Aut}(widetilde{X})$ that preserves fibres, so that $ p=pcirc phi.$ It can be shown (and is in Hatcher) that given $xin X$, and any pair of points $y,zin p^{-1}(x)$ there exists a deck transformation $phi in G(widetilde{X})$ with $phi(y)=z$. That is, the action is transitive.



          So, the intuition here is that when we quotient by $G(widetilde{X})$ action on $widetilde{X}$, we think of points as being "the same" if they can be related by the action of an element of $G(widetilde{X})$. Over each $x$ there is a fibre $p^{-1}(x)$ which corresponds to a single orbit $mathcal{O}_x$ under the $G(widetilde{X})-$action. After quotienting, we are left with the space ${mathcal{O}_x:xin X}$. You can check that its quotient topology of $X/G(widetilde{X})$ is precisely the topology of $X$ so that $widetilde{X}/G(widetilde{X})cong X$ by the obvious map $mathcal{O}_xmapsto x$. (This isn't too hard to see if you leverage the local triviality of the covering space.)






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • To create $phi$ I would pick a small (simply connected) neighborhood $U$ of $y$ such that $p|_U$ is injective, then find in $p^{-1}(p(U)) = bigcup_j V_j$ the $V_j$ containing $z$, for $u in U$ set $phi(u) = p^{-1}(p(u)) cap V_j$. Doing that repeatedly with $u,phi(u)$ instead of $y,z$ will extend $phi$ to the whole $tilde{X}$
            – reuns
            Nov 27 at 3:59













          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3015280%2fwhy-is-a-space-homeomorphic-to-the-orbit-space-of-its-universal-cover-by-its-dec%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          2














          Here's the idea: given a "normal" covering space $widetilde{X}xrightarrow{p} X$, a deck transformation is an automorphism $phiin operatorname{Aut}(widetilde{X})$ that preserves fibres, so that $ p=pcirc phi.$ It can be shown (and is in Hatcher) that given $xin X$, and any pair of points $y,zin p^{-1}(x)$ there exists a deck transformation $phi in G(widetilde{X})$ with $phi(y)=z$. That is, the action is transitive.



          So, the intuition here is that when we quotient by $G(widetilde{X})$ action on $widetilde{X}$, we think of points as being "the same" if they can be related by the action of an element of $G(widetilde{X})$. Over each $x$ there is a fibre $p^{-1}(x)$ which corresponds to a single orbit $mathcal{O}_x$ under the $G(widetilde{X})-$action. After quotienting, we are left with the space ${mathcal{O}_x:xin X}$. You can check that its quotient topology of $X/G(widetilde{X})$ is precisely the topology of $X$ so that $widetilde{X}/G(widetilde{X})cong X$ by the obvious map $mathcal{O}_xmapsto x$. (This isn't too hard to see if you leverage the local triviality of the covering space.)






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • To create $phi$ I would pick a small (simply connected) neighborhood $U$ of $y$ such that $p|_U$ is injective, then find in $p^{-1}(p(U)) = bigcup_j V_j$ the $V_j$ containing $z$, for $u in U$ set $phi(u) = p^{-1}(p(u)) cap V_j$. Doing that repeatedly with $u,phi(u)$ instead of $y,z$ will extend $phi$ to the whole $tilde{X}$
            – reuns
            Nov 27 at 3:59


















          2














          Here's the idea: given a "normal" covering space $widetilde{X}xrightarrow{p} X$, a deck transformation is an automorphism $phiin operatorname{Aut}(widetilde{X})$ that preserves fibres, so that $ p=pcirc phi.$ It can be shown (and is in Hatcher) that given $xin X$, and any pair of points $y,zin p^{-1}(x)$ there exists a deck transformation $phi in G(widetilde{X})$ with $phi(y)=z$. That is, the action is transitive.



          So, the intuition here is that when we quotient by $G(widetilde{X})$ action on $widetilde{X}$, we think of points as being "the same" if they can be related by the action of an element of $G(widetilde{X})$. Over each $x$ there is a fibre $p^{-1}(x)$ which corresponds to a single orbit $mathcal{O}_x$ under the $G(widetilde{X})-$action. After quotienting, we are left with the space ${mathcal{O}_x:xin X}$. You can check that its quotient topology of $X/G(widetilde{X})$ is precisely the topology of $X$ so that $widetilde{X}/G(widetilde{X})cong X$ by the obvious map $mathcal{O}_xmapsto x$. (This isn't too hard to see if you leverage the local triviality of the covering space.)






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • To create $phi$ I would pick a small (simply connected) neighborhood $U$ of $y$ such that $p|_U$ is injective, then find in $p^{-1}(p(U)) = bigcup_j V_j$ the $V_j$ containing $z$, for $u in U$ set $phi(u) = p^{-1}(p(u)) cap V_j$. Doing that repeatedly with $u,phi(u)$ instead of $y,z$ will extend $phi$ to the whole $tilde{X}$
            – reuns
            Nov 27 at 3:59
















          2












          2








          2






          Here's the idea: given a "normal" covering space $widetilde{X}xrightarrow{p} X$, a deck transformation is an automorphism $phiin operatorname{Aut}(widetilde{X})$ that preserves fibres, so that $ p=pcirc phi.$ It can be shown (and is in Hatcher) that given $xin X$, and any pair of points $y,zin p^{-1}(x)$ there exists a deck transformation $phi in G(widetilde{X})$ with $phi(y)=z$. That is, the action is transitive.



          So, the intuition here is that when we quotient by $G(widetilde{X})$ action on $widetilde{X}$, we think of points as being "the same" if they can be related by the action of an element of $G(widetilde{X})$. Over each $x$ there is a fibre $p^{-1}(x)$ which corresponds to a single orbit $mathcal{O}_x$ under the $G(widetilde{X})-$action. After quotienting, we are left with the space ${mathcal{O}_x:xin X}$. You can check that its quotient topology of $X/G(widetilde{X})$ is precisely the topology of $X$ so that $widetilde{X}/G(widetilde{X})cong X$ by the obvious map $mathcal{O}_xmapsto x$. (This isn't too hard to see if you leverage the local triviality of the covering space.)






          share|cite|improve this answer












          Here's the idea: given a "normal" covering space $widetilde{X}xrightarrow{p} X$, a deck transformation is an automorphism $phiin operatorname{Aut}(widetilde{X})$ that preserves fibres, so that $ p=pcirc phi.$ It can be shown (and is in Hatcher) that given $xin X$, and any pair of points $y,zin p^{-1}(x)$ there exists a deck transformation $phi in G(widetilde{X})$ with $phi(y)=z$. That is, the action is transitive.



          So, the intuition here is that when we quotient by $G(widetilde{X})$ action on $widetilde{X}$, we think of points as being "the same" if they can be related by the action of an element of $G(widetilde{X})$. Over each $x$ there is a fibre $p^{-1}(x)$ which corresponds to a single orbit $mathcal{O}_x$ under the $G(widetilde{X})-$action. After quotienting, we are left with the space ${mathcal{O}_x:xin X}$. You can check that its quotient topology of $X/G(widetilde{X})$ is precisely the topology of $X$ so that $widetilde{X}/G(widetilde{X})cong X$ by the obvious map $mathcal{O}_xmapsto x$. (This isn't too hard to see if you leverage the local triviality of the covering space.)







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Nov 27 at 3:43









          Antonios-Alexandros Robotis

          9,15041640




          9,15041640












          • To create $phi$ I would pick a small (simply connected) neighborhood $U$ of $y$ such that $p|_U$ is injective, then find in $p^{-1}(p(U)) = bigcup_j V_j$ the $V_j$ containing $z$, for $u in U$ set $phi(u) = p^{-1}(p(u)) cap V_j$. Doing that repeatedly with $u,phi(u)$ instead of $y,z$ will extend $phi$ to the whole $tilde{X}$
            – reuns
            Nov 27 at 3:59




















          • To create $phi$ I would pick a small (simply connected) neighborhood $U$ of $y$ such that $p|_U$ is injective, then find in $p^{-1}(p(U)) = bigcup_j V_j$ the $V_j$ containing $z$, for $u in U$ set $phi(u) = p^{-1}(p(u)) cap V_j$. Doing that repeatedly with $u,phi(u)$ instead of $y,z$ will extend $phi$ to the whole $tilde{X}$
            – reuns
            Nov 27 at 3:59


















          To create $phi$ I would pick a small (simply connected) neighborhood $U$ of $y$ such that $p|_U$ is injective, then find in $p^{-1}(p(U)) = bigcup_j V_j$ the $V_j$ containing $z$, for $u in U$ set $phi(u) = p^{-1}(p(u)) cap V_j$. Doing that repeatedly with $u,phi(u)$ instead of $y,z$ will extend $phi$ to the whole $tilde{X}$
          – reuns
          Nov 27 at 3:59






          To create $phi$ I would pick a small (simply connected) neighborhood $U$ of $y$ such that $p|_U$ is injective, then find in $p^{-1}(p(U)) = bigcup_j V_j$ the $V_j$ containing $z$, for $u in U$ set $phi(u) = p^{-1}(p(u)) cap V_j$. Doing that repeatedly with $u,phi(u)$ instead of $y,z$ will extend $phi$ to the whole $tilde{X}$
          – reuns
          Nov 27 at 3:59




















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3015280%2fwhy-is-a-space-homeomorphic-to-the-orbit-space-of-its-universal-cover-by-its-dec%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Aardman Animations

          Are they similar matrix

          “minimization” problem in Euclidean space related to orthonormal basis